JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. This is a defendants’ appeal against reversing judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession, in the event he has been dispossessed during pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased Ac.0.36 dec. of land appertaining to Hamid Settlement Plot No. 682 from the father of the defendants by means of an unregistered sale deed on 20.01.1964 for a consideration of Rs.100/-. He had also purchased plot no.549 measuring Ac.0.43 dec. and plot no. 551 measuring Ac.0.31 dec. for a consideration of Rs.2,000/-by means of an unregistered sale deed on 04.05.1964 from the father of the defendants. After sale, possession of land was duly delivered to him. The suit lands had been mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 387/70. In the M.S. R.O.R., the suit land has been recorded in his name. The defendants, who have no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land, trespassed into the suit land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that their father had not alienated the suit land to the father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land at any point of time. The specific case of the defendants was that they are members of the scheduled tribe. The father of the plaintiff is a nonscheduled tribe. Any transaction was void ab initio due to want of permission from the competent authority.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck four issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that for want of permission from the competent authority under Sec.46 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, the sale deeds vide Exts.1 and 2 could not confer any title on the plaintiff as the vendors were the members of the scheduled tribe and the vendee was the member of the non-scheduled tribe. It further held that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed T.A. No.6 of 1994 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and renumbered as T.A. No. 6/1 of 1994-96. The learned appellate court held that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law enumerated in the ground nos. B and E of the appeal memo:-

“(B) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar under Sec.67 of O.L.R. Act ?

(E) Whether it was proper on the part of the lower appellate court to hold that the period of limitation in case of scheduled tribes was 12 years and not 30 years ?”

06. Heard Mr. Budhiram Dash, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

7. Mr. Dash, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the defendants belong to the scheduled tribe. The plaintiff is a nonscheduled tribe. The father of the defendants had not alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. No permission whatsoever was accorded by the competent authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, ‘the O.L.R. Act’) to alienate the suit land. As such, sale deeds were void. He further contends that in one of the sale deeds, valuation of the property was more than Rs.2,000/-. Under Sec.17 of the Registration Act, the registration is compulsory. He further contends that the suit for adverse possession against the property of a non-scheduled tribe is not maintainable.

8. Exts.1 and 2 are unregistered sale deeds. With Regard to Ext.2, the valuation of property was more than Rs.100/-. Thus registrati